Here I bring to you Jedi Pauly, the video. In this truly remarkable video, Jedi Pauly presents his “scientific” theory of “natural born citizenship” which derives from a principle he calls “natural law jurisdiction” under which one inherits their political rights solely from their father, based on natural law, self-evident because of the superior physical strength of males over females. (Yup, you heard me right.)
He cites Minor v Happersett (women citizens can’t necessarily vote) and the Declaration of Independence (all men are created equal) to prove that women do not have political rights under the Constitution. Of course the conclusion is that because Barack Obama’s father was not a United States citizen, Barack Obama inherits no US political rights (his mother and his place of birth being irrelevant) and is not a natural born citizen of the United States.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awe314WTONY
I found the text version.
THE TRUE MEANING AND INTERPRETATION
OF ARTICLE II “natural born Citizen”
A SCIENTIFIC LEGAL THEORY
by
JEDI PAULY
This is comical:
http://jedipauly.com/
Hmmmm….who do I believe, some guy on the internet going by the name of Jedipauly, and fails to cite anything to support his views….or perhaps Gabriel J. Chin, Professor of Law at the University of Arizona, who says “Those born in the United States are uncontroversially natural born citizens.” 107 Mich L. Rev. First Impressions 1, 2 (2008).
I just don’t understand, how people can just pull this stuff out of the air, and try to act like it has any meaning…serious, you must be a total head case to think that you can just dream up a theory of law out of no where and think it has meaning. Who are these nutters and where do they come from?
I especially like the way he projects his racism at the end.
This crap is hilarious…First of all I believe jedi pauly is one of the regulars over at the Post and Fail….His so called conclusion is interesting in its inherent sexism and racism…
“We have now discovered and proven what actually is the true meaning and definition and interpretation of Article II “natural born Citizen”. It is clear that it has nothing to do with your place of birth nor your mother, but just means a natural born citizen created by a citizen father. The utter contempt of the Congress, and the Courts, and the Department of Justice, and the FBI, Military, News Media, etc., for the Constitution and the sovereign political rights of the People, is now blatantly clear. There can be no question that there is no political representation of the citizens, or recognition of the natural sovereign political rights of males, or any legal recognition of the freedoms and liberties of We the People. With Obama installed as a usurper, we have now gone back in time to the identical political conditions that existed prior to the Declaration of Independence under the tyranny of the monarchy of King George and his Parliament. We now live under tyranny and involuntary servitude to Congress and their statutes that cannot possibly be valid law with an illegal President signing them.
The Courts of course, are going to expect the citizenry to accept the validity of the statutes, and the courts’ authority, when in fact the statutes are completely without validity and the courts lack authority and proper jurisdiction to enforce the statutes signed by Obama. The judges will no longer be judges but instead they will become prosecutors, usurping authority that they do not have to prosecute political tyranny with lies, forcing people against their rights of conscience to accept lies and false laws, and they will ignore the natural sovereign political rights of the citizens that are recognized in the Declaration of Independence and implied in the U.S. Constitution. A condition of involuntary servitude, which is the essence of SLAVERY, will now be the law of the land. It is ironic that in 2008 a black man and the Supreme Court are responsible for reviving the condition of slavery in America. It is unconscionable that the FBI and Justice Department and Courts just sit on their hands and lack the political will to enforce the laws and Constitution and they will just stand by and watch the courts become corrupted and the citizenry abused and violated. We might as well be living in Nazi Germany. The Republic is lost. All hail King Obama and the 50 State Plantation of America. I hope you enjoy being a slave.”
I have to concur. I find it hilarious how anyone would believe that some random guy would know more than actual legal scholars….
I was corresponding with the fellow in email. He has a “scientific” definition of “natural born citizen” based on some natural law thing. He stopped writing when I convinced him that I was not Mario Apuzzo.
Those who might say: “looks like Jedi Pauly hasn’t read the Congressional Research Service memo” would be wrong. Pauly said that he was very familiar with it, describing it as a “bogus piece of propaganda that easy to debunk and is nothing more than evidence of a criminal conspiracy to defraud the people.”
Oh, and he’s called me a fraud too.
When 900 years old YOU be, talk this much s%^&, you will.
This surfaced on the Post and Fail about a week ago. (at least the text version did) I’m still not convinced that it isn’t someone attempting to punk both sides.
After ripping into the theories of Berg, Apuzzo and Taitz the author then expounds his/her own interpretation of Article II. Then comes my favourite part, they claim that they are much more suited to present this argument precisely because they are not a laywer, but in fact a physicist.
Jedi Pauly says
” I am better than a lawyer, I am a PHYSICIST class of 87′ Purdue University West Lafayette Indiana!”
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/11/04/the-true-meaning-and-interpretation-of-article-ii-natural-born-citizen/comment-page-2/#comment-29867
Gee, I wish I could be so honored as to be called a “fraud” by a real Jedi physicist from Purdue University.
He got his education from the Jedi Temple.
They is plural. Is that what you meant?
He has a “scientific” definition of “natural born citizen” based on some natural law thing.
Ellid:
Could this be the troll from David Weigel’s Washington Independent threads arguing natural law ad nauseam?
I think he is drawing the wrong conclusion from his natural law theory thingy.
It is obvious that one can never be sure of the father of a child, building a theory that a child can ‘naturally’ inherit from his father due to superior strength of the male is disastrous. Since wimmin are naturally promiscuous no child can be sure of his father and no man can be sure of his child.
The only thing you can sure of is the mother, because witnesses can see the kid pop out of the oven. That is the only natural law source of parental inheritance. Wimmin have enslaved the male population and deluded them into thinking that they are in charge. That is why Hilary had to stay so close to Obama, so she could continue to pull the strings.
Of course, no society on Earth follows that natural law anymore…
Do they Misha?
Birthers seem to argue semantics a lot (natural-born citizen/native born citizen, COLB/birth certificate, etc.).
Their point seems to be in those cases that there are very specific legal meanings to those terms and they are not interchangable.
To me, it’s you say tomayto, I say toemahto. They’re just splitting hairs.
Are courts really in the business of splitting hairs like that?
How much hairsplitting will they do when a white guy with a foreign parent eventually runs for President?
None. Bill Richardson and Spiro Agnew.
If allegiance is inherited from the father, that means it must be on the Y-chromosome. The Y-chromosome is a very short one, with only 60 million base-pairs. That means we should be able to isolate the allegiance gene relatively easily. The Y, since it is stored, and passed through sperm, is highly susceptible to mutations. Assuming this sex-based allegiance gene, we can posit a pseudo-scientific rationale for jus soli – namely, the environs of a country mutate the allegiance gene in such a way that all those born here have the same allegiance gene. You could even suggest that it takes one generation to really stick.
But, consider two families. One has lived here for generations, but as a diplomatic family, never in all of history naturalizing in the US. The just moved here last week. The dad in this latter family naturalized as a US citizen on Friday, and his son was born on Monday. What magic happened to the Y-chromosome of our new dad in the naturalization process. I’ve checked, and there is no recombinant DNA sequencing going on at INS. For starters, they don’t have the proper facilities to conduct such research.
When the Jedi started his argument by contending that females weren’t considered in the definition of natural born citizen because it only applied to “free-born MALES” we could have stopped him there. We have a black man in office. The Founders said that all men were created equal but owned slaves. It’s clear that blacks were not part of the “all men,” so clearly weren’t considered equal, even to women. In the Founders’ minds, therefore, the only person (practically the only person) of any importance in Obama’s family was his mother. Blacks could not own property, much less pass on rights to their children.
Courts rely on established precedent, and look first to the plainly or commonly understood meaning of words or phrases. The birthers can split all the hairs they want, but there’s no getting around the Wong Kim Ark case.
> The birthers can split all the hairs they want, but there’s no getting around the Wong Kim Ark case.
There is, in their minds. They split hairs by introducing a difference between “natural born citizen” (= born on US soil by two US citizen parents) and “citizen at birth” (Wong Kim Ark), thus creating a 3rd kind of citizen (the remaining one being “naturalized citizen”).
To them, it is logical that there must be a difference since SCOTUS never said in one sentence “Wong Kim Ark is a natural born citizen”.
Besides, even if SCOTUS had, they would simply claim that this was wrong and SCOTUS had no authority to redefine the “intention of the Founders” which all birthers know to have been “de Vattel über alles” from the get-go.
So you see, stupidity is very creative. 😉
They used to wear hoods and burn crosses. They were suppressed for a while but now they’re back. I wonder why.
You bring up an interesting point. Was Bill Richardson’s Mom naturalized before he was born? If not, why was he so freely seeking the Presidency?
MarÃa Luisa López-Collada Márquez, Richardson’s Mom was sent for by her husband from Mexico to give birth in the US, but was she naturalized?
Excellent!
Possible, although the Star Wars angle ups the sheer nuttiness percentage quite a bit – do you recall if the Independent fellow claimed to be a physicist?
What doesn’t surprise me is that this guy seems to be a science fiction fan. There are a LOT of crazy theories floating around fandom, possibly because SF fans are so used to reading speculative fiction that it’s easy to see the world in those terms. Also, a lot of the engineering/scientific/computer types who populate SF conventions don’t read much fiction that isn’t SF or fantasy, or who skipped the humanities courses in college because they could read them on their own. Autodidacticism can be a good thing, but it can result in people who know a lot but lack training in critical thinking.
That’s why you can end up with fans who love Star Trek but are prejudiced against non-whites (yes, really – I met one once. Terrifying), or a D&D group that has their characters suicide rather than live as women after a sex change curse, or the huge number of libertarians act like the ideal human is a genetic meld of Robert Heinlein, Ayn Rand, and Superman.
That hasn’t prevented “constitutional researchers” like Borderraven from trying, even though it’s obvious that he can barely read, let alone interpret the law. *shudders*
I don’t recall the physicist angle but he was more literate than most birthers.
I am not sure. I think she was not a US citizen at the time. Anyone?
Of course he did….Once he discovered that you were someone that was not willing to engage in confirmation bias, he had no actually research to debate this issue. In reading his “conclusions”, I am convinced that he is just another in the long line of birther wannabe lawyers and experts that are pandering to a group of clowns that are already sure that Obama is not eligible and guilty of something…
More nonsense from delusional birther over at ORYR…
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/11/new-research-2003-supreme-court-opinion.html
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
New Research: 2003 United States Supreme Court Opinion; The SCOTUS affirmed Vatell’s Law of Nations as a part of US Domestic law.
ObamaRelease YourRecords on 3:53 PM
[UPDATE BELOW] Via bushpilot1 at Free Republic; – 2003 Supreme Court: For 200 years domestic law of the US recognizes the Law of Nations(Vattel) –
The Court affirmed Vatell’s Law of Nations as a part of US Domestic law on page 37. [SCOTUS opinion embedded below image]
“For two centuries we have affirmed that the domestic law of the United States recognizes the law of nations.”
They sourced the translated edition of Chitty.
“eE. de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Preliminaries §3 (J. Chitty et al. transl. and ed. 1883”
Lets have a look at the Chitty translated edition and see what it says about citizen parents and natural born citizens.
Image Source. Research by bushpilot1 at Free Republic. Source and much more commentary here; http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2625035/posts
BirtherReport Note: Vattel cited on Scribd document page 24, 25, 26 and 34. Law of Nations cited on document page 1, 3, 4, 8, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 52, 53, 55, 57, 58, 61 and 62. Embedded below.
BirtherReport Update; This case has been previously cited in the Kerchner et al v Obama et al briefings to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia in regards to the applicability of Vattel and the Law of Nations and in some of Mario’s writings in his blog.
The comment below is passed along from Atty Mario Apuzzo.
——————————
I have already cited this case. See:
Given that citizenship affects “the behavior of nation states with each other,” Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), the Founders would have looked to the law of nations to define it for the needs of the new nation. Clearly, citizenship is both a national and international matter which affects the relations among nations. The Founders and Framers would have looked to the law of nations to define citizenship in the new nation and not the English common law.” http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/11/framers-used-emer-de-vattel-not-william.html
The Framers did not define an Article II “natural born Citizen” because they did not see a reason to. It was a term that was well defined by the law of nations and well-know by civilized nations. Given that citizenship affects “the behavior of nation states with each other” (Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), all civilized nations knew what the definition of citizenship was. The Founders believed that the common law was discoverable by reason and was forever present, a “discoverable reflection of universal reason.” Sosa. So since the Constitution did not define “citizen” or “natural born Citizen,” “resort must be had to the customs and usages of civilized nations” found in the law of nations, as defined by scholars, jurists, and commentators of the time who devoted “years of labor, research and experience” to the subject. The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677, 700 (1900).
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.html
I also cited the case to the Third Circuit in my reply brief. See page 12. [embedded below SCOTUS opinion]
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
More birther insanity….
http://www.gofotus.webs.com/
Fellow Tea Party ~ 912 Organizers ~ Patriots… Thank You in advance for taking the time to read ALL sections of our site and intellect in understanding the reality of its content. We understand that each organization has their own perspective on the hijacking of our country and some may not want to pursue the eligibility issue. We honor and appreciate all of your hard work in the defense of OUR CONSTITUTION. We simple ask that you would consider networking between your contacts and share our ideas for peaceful activism, recruiting and fundraising
Please research links below:
THE OBAMA FILE
DISCOVER THE NETWORKS
OBAMA PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY ~ AN INTRODUCTORY PRIMER
After viewing the three links above, your conclusion should be clear, our COUNTRY is under attack. For the past 2+ years, almost every single thing we warned the “koolaid” drinkers about has come to pass. Look at what “little” we DO know about the FOTUS (Obama / Soetoro)… NOW just imagine what we DON’T know.
WE THE PEOPLE MUST STAND PEACEFULLY NOW OR BE FORCED TO SUBMIT TO WHAT WE ALL KNOW IS COMING
The Tea Party ~ 912 Rallies have shown up in large masses proving great victory in the fight for OUR country and that “we the people” are AWAKE and not alone.
For help providing PEACEFUL PROACTION to DEMAND answers from “THE ONE” ~ EXPOSE the MEDIA and WAKE the MASSES from their MEDIA INDUCED TRANCE, please click OPERATION SCREAMIN EAGLE LOGO BELOW.
Your local Tea Party ~ 912 Groups have shown great strides in reaching local patriots. We have a few “outside the box” ideas to help reach out to the MASSES Locally/ Nationwide. You can find those ideas here.
Our GOFOTUS Store was designed to raise awareness and the funds needed to defend God and Country. We have brands that MILLIONS of Americans and partners worldwide will recognize. 50% of the funds from sales* will go towards those associates who are proudly fighting the eligibility issue for us.
Thank you for taking the time to learn a little bit more about GOFOTUS, Operation Screamin’ Eagle, and our goals. We can only attribute failure to lack of action. Our methods may not be the norm, but they come with great love for our Country. It is time to be proactive in this fight to win back America. We will have our OWN day to celebrate, when we do.
Game Over Fraud Of The United States
Sincerely,
Brandon A.K.A. Screamin’ Eagle
Your Fellow American & Patriot
> There are a LOT of crazy theories floating around fandom, possibly because SF fans are so used to reading speculative fiction that it’s easy to see the world in those terms.
And maybe because a lot of SF stories glorifies the role of the (mostly white) humans, showing them as morally superior and “fitter to survive” over technologically advanced aliens. A proper basis for borderline racists who believe in the superiority of the (white) human race and would deny any (technologically superior) alien race the right to meet on even grounds – after all, it was “man” who was made in God’s image, not some grey-faced tentacled being from Omicron Persei VI, right?
And probably some Star Wars fans were happy when George Lucas reinterpreted the Jedi role to “natural born Jedi” – after all, if your Midichlorian count decides if and how strong a Jedi you can become, that echoes their sentiments about US citizenship.
Natural born citizen, natural born Jedi, you get the picture… 🙂
You know I combed through all the movies, extended universe, etc and I never remember there being a jedi master named Qui Gon Vattel
I somehow doubt that a real physicist would use the term theory to describe this screed. Maybe this is someone who, at one time or other in his life, took a physics course & got a passing grade.
I am sure poster “Scientist” would have a field day with this loon….
“It doesn’t even explain gravity.”
Space opera, at least in America, has been glorifying the superiority of humans all along. It’s particularly bad in filmed SF – about the only examples I can think of where humans *weren’t* naturally better than the aliens in every single way are some of the later Star Trek series (Deep Space 9 in particular). It’s also notable that Star Trek is *still* just about the only series with a multi-racial, multi-ethnic cast, and the only one that cast either a non-white or a woman as the lead character.
One example that drove me absolutely crazy was Battlestar Galactica, where the finale not only relied on a cliche that was old when Hugo Gernsback was a pup, it basically made the light skinned Colonials the ancestors of humans because they intermarried with the primitive humans they found in….*drumroll*…Africa. It was the most breathtaking dismissal of Africans as being responsible for ANYTHING in human history or evolution I’ve ever seen.
And don’t forget Ed Muskie and Mike Dukakis
In what alternate universe are physicists more qualified to make statements on the law than lawyers? How genuinely deluded does a person have to be to make a statement like that? A took a few science courses in my undergrad years, and I don’t recall the subject of Constitutional interpretation coming up. Does that mean as a lawyer, I’m more qualified to design a nuclear reactor than he is? I don’t recall physics coming up in my ConLaw classes.
I’ve seen that nutter pop up here and there. He really is one of the more clueless birthers….he gives that New Mexican Paralegal guy a run for his money in terms of genuinely being clueless about the law, although our paralegal guy has a leg up on clueless and arrogant (oh…he was a great writer of fiction too!)
The Stupid is strong with this one.
Sweet Jesus! These idiots still don’t realize the phrase “law of nations” is a general term for customary international law. One would think the fact the Court didn’t use capital letter, or cite to the book, or mention Vattel would be a clue…..and I wonder how surprised they would be when told Scalia has particular contempt for using “the law of nations” as precedent for US courts?
From the loons over at GW…
http://gretawire.forums.foxnews.com/topic/reveals-how-congress-was-prepped-to-deflect-obama-eligibility-queries
Jerome Corsi is at it again….
http://work949.wordpress.com/2010/11/12/jerome-corsi-digs-deeper-reveals-how-congress-was-prepped-to-deflect-questions-about-obamas-eligibility/
Jerome Corsi has done the work of ten police detectives during his investigation to discover Barack Obama’s history, for which the President has spent millions of dollars to conceal from the People and the Press. Corsi’s travels have taken him as far as Kenya, where he was once taken into custody by Kenyan authorities a few years back, and deported before he could gather any birth records and interview potential witnesses which might exist there.
Today he published a copyrighted story at WorldNetDaily that relates in detail exactly how members of Congress were provided material by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) to help them ameliorate constituents who might call or write letters, demanding some answers as to the President’s proof of eligibility to attain his office:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=226697
In an effort that is nothing short of Orwellian, the CRS memo was written by researcher Jerry Mansfield in June of 2009, complete with four attached pieces gathered from the internet to discredit the questioners. Corsi provides a link to Mansfield’s memo here:
There have been numerous lawsuits filed in Courts of Law throughout the land in attempts to find the truth – yet not one judge has granted the plaintiffs’ motions for discovery of documents that can answer the questions. And Obama’s concealed history is far and above the long-form birth certificate at issue – it includes school documents, college transcripts and financial aid applications, passport application records, selective service registration records, and name-change records.
I don’t know the answers to the questions. I do understand the questions and I believe they are valid. I cannot come to any conclusions, because team Obama strangely refuses to divulge the information.
The Courts have refused to hear the arguments for or against the proposition that we may have a pretender in office, citing the duty of Congress to confirm or dispel a political candidate’s eligibility to be duly elected to the office of President.
So, there is really only one way to resolve this nagging question about who Obama really is, from whence he came – and whether he is a natural-born citizen, a repatriated citizen or a fraud. The Republicans have been granted another chance to run the legislative branch of the government. Speaker of The House Nancy Peolosi vouched for Obama’s candidacy at the Democratic National Convention in 2008.
The House can open a post-facto investigation into Obama’s credentials and Constitutional eligibility. Such a decision, if it is made, is likely to cause great rancor in Congress, grand mal seizures among the overwhelmingly leftist press corps, charges of racism and perhaps even major violent disturbances in certain parts of the country. The question, then, is: Whatever it may turn out to be, can we deal with the Truth?
Meanwhile, Corsi presses on.
Ellid, good points. Star Trek was a bit more of a realistic representation in SciFI than many other attempts. Which explains it’s more lasting effect on pop culture and its lasting relevance in society almost 50 years later….
Based upon the oral arguments for US v. Ruben Flores-Villar, it would seem unlikely that Mr. Pauly’s argument would be well recieved by the court.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/09-5801.pdf
The arguments primarily focus on whether there is sufficient justification for treating men and women differently under naturalization law in order to pass equal protection scrutiny. However, Petitioner did try to argue that Congress was limited in its ability to deny jus sanguinis citizenship to children of citizens, but for some reason didn’t try to argue that jus sanguinis was incorporated into the natural born citizenship clause. The government cited Wong Kim Ark and Rogers v. Bellei for the proposition that there is no right under the Constitution for jus sanguinis citizenship and the Justices seemed to agree. Petitioner could have made the argument much better.
For those of us who don’t want to wade through 67 pages of a SCOTUS transcript could someone please summarize the salient points of this case. Thanks in advance.
> about the only examples I can think of where humans *weren’t* naturally better than the aliens in every single way are some of the later Star Trek series
Babylon 5. 🙂 One reason I loved the series was that it wasn’t all “humans save the aliens from their own stupidity” missionary crap. Although a human was portrayed as pretty much “the saviour”, the series was never about human superiority.
> One would think the fact the Court didn’t use capital letter, or cite to the book, or mention Vattel would be a clue
Actually, the Court capitalizes “law of nations” at least once, still there’s no hint it meant the book (just like in the crap Appuzo (?) writes about the alleged significance of capitalizing “citizen” in the Constitution).
It also mentions (and even quotes) Vattel 6 times, but never in the context where it talks about “the law of nations”.
However one would assume if SCOTUS carefully cites Vattel in detail 6 times, it would at least show a hint wherever “law of nations” actually should mean the book.
However, the capitalization argument tackles birthers on their own ground, after all they can read all sorts of things into such flimsy technicalities, like “a certification is not the same as a certificate” or “citizen by and at birth is not the same as natural born citizen”.
We have the same idiots here in Germany. E.g. the German Grundgesetz (constitution) has an article which basically says “This Grundgesetz becomes void as soon as the people replace it with a constitution that has been voted on freely”. The looneys claim this would “prove” that the current constitution has *not* been freely accepted. *duh*
The case was about whether naturalization laws that require require unmarried citizen fathers, but not unmarried citizen mothers, who have a child with a noncitizen outside the US, to have lived in the country five years before they can pass along jus sanguinis citizenship. Hence is it essentially an equal protection case. However, petitioner argued that while previous courts have held that Congress’ power over naturalization was plenary, jus sanguinis citizens at birth should be treated differently since jus sanguinis citizenship to children of citizens has a tradition going back to 1350 (i.e., the first English statute to confer “natural born” status on children of subjects born). The Justices did not seem very open to the notion that there was a right to jus sanguinis citizenship under the Consitution that would limit Congress’ power of naturalization as would be the case if such were incorporated in the natural born citizenship clause. Hence, it would not seem they would be very open to Mr. Pauly’s theory.
Mario Apuzzo refuses to address that Natural Born Citizen does not appear in the Law of Nations at the signing of the Constitution.
Of course, these idiots don’t bother reading the decision. Interesting that it cties Blackstone 14 times. Blackstone said that the law of nations was part of the law of England and should be followed in appropriate circumstances. It was often said in such period that all civilized nations were bound by the law of nations when dealing with each other. He didn’t mean by this that the law of nations superceded English municipal law, but that when dealing in the narrow area of international relations, one must look to the law of nations. There was a similar view in America as this case makes clear. It also makes clear that the application is very narrow as it recognizes “that “international disputes implicating . . . our relations with foreign nations” are one of the “narrow areas” in which “federal common law” continues to exist.” Since it was often said that the law of nations was part of our law, but the Constitution did not adopt the law of nations, it has been called a federal common law. Birthers try to argue that this means that when courts refer to interpreting the constitution by the common law, they mean the law of nations. Of course, many courts, like Wong Kim Ark, have made clear that when referring to the common law in constitutional interpretation, they mean the English common law.
Ballantine, if the birthers weren’t such idiots and actually read the relevant case law and court rulings, they wouldn’t then be birthers. It’s simple. They remain ignorant of the truth so that they can pretend that Wong Kim Ark doesn’t exist, that Vattel was more important than Blackstone, and that the Constitution does require 2 citizen parents in order for someone to be considered a natural born citizen.
Agreed. I do find it amusing that here is a case detailing the founders views on the law of nations and it cites Blackstone on the law of nations more than twice as many times de Vattel. It also makes very clear that the application of the law of nations was limited to international relations. Funny how most authority birthers cite actually undercut their arguments.
I loved Babylon 5 – the last episode had me bawling uncontrollably. It also had a lot of humor, like Garibaldi telling G’kar that Daffy Duck was the Egyptian god of frustration….
Well to espouse on the earlier motion in Babylon Five the human was also the evil one as well with the president.
This guy has mommy issues.
More birther hilarity….From a couple of wacky birthers named ppsimmons and Pastor Carl Gallups, who review the CRS report and make it seem like it supports the birther claim. That is hilarious, especially when we know that they determine that President Obama is eligible to be President….Take a look
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZIHhhgulww&feature=player_embedded
And in the comments…
koolmom21 (13 hours ago)
You can not impeach a man from the presidency if he was never president so therefore he would be considered a spy and punished as such.
Kind of reminds me of the old Bible school joke as to why there are no women in heaven:
Revelations 8:1
“And when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour.”
The same (non)logic is being used. 😀
Mario has been silent for a while on this site http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/11/funny-indian-official-introduces-obama-as-a-fellow-kenyan/#comment-223369
But I still welcome any help you can give us who have been arguing with him.
I’m sorry, but that would be another £5.
Granite, after you eviserated Mario’s following comment, I doubt you will see him again. You and Magic pretty much shot his theory up, so he will sulk, read what we write here, and then attack you on his moderated blog. He got tired of Greg, Ballantine, Doc, and the others here shooting holes in his so called legal theories, so he took his ball and went home….
“Granite,
Minor was well aware that the Constitution distinguishes between a “citizen of the United States” and a “natural born Citizen.” And Minor also gave us a clear definition of a “natural-born citizen,” one based on natural law, the law of nations, and Vattel, and not the English common law. That definition is a child born in the country to citizen “parents.” It went on to tell us that there are no doubts about this definition of a “natural- born citizen.” On the other hand, it told us that there are doubts if a child born in the country to non-citizen parents is even a “citizen.” Hence, Minor’s doubts relate to whether one is a “citizen of the United States,” not whether one is a “natural born Citizen.”
Any later case like Wong Kim Ark that resolved the Minor doubts decided the question of whether such children are “citizens of the United States” not whether they are “natural born Citizens” which was not in dispute in Minor. Wong Kim Ark, like Minor, knew of and acknowledged the distinction between a born 14th Amendment “citizen of the United States” and an Article II “natural born Citizen.” The issue in Wong Kim Ark was whether Wong was a born 14th Amendment “citizen of the United States,” not whether he was an Article II “natural born Citizen.” It does not matter what the lower court ruled in Wong. In any event, the lower court ruled that Wong was a 14th Amendment born “citizen of the United States.” No where in the decision did the court say he was a “natural born Citizen.” It also said that the law of nations, “that the child follows the nationality of the parents, and that citizenship does not depend upon mere accidental place of birth, is undoubtedly more logical, reasonable, and satisfactory.” The court felt, however, that it could not apply that rule because it was bound by “controlling judicial authority” in the 9th Circuit which had previously ruled that “subject to the jurisdiction” simply meant subject to the laws of the United States rather than subject to the political jurisdiction of the United States.
All the definitions of a “natural born Citizen” provided by our Supreme Court and other lower courts speak of “parents.” Hence, when these courts speak of “fathers,” they mean also mothers based on the doctrine that the wife’s citizenship merges into that of the husband.
You fail to understand that you and the legal scholars that you cite have defined what a born “citizen of the United States” is and not what a “natural born Citizen” is. All the analysis that you provide is guilty of conflating a “citizen of the United States” with a “natural born Citizen” and doing so without providing any analysis when the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and in other parts clearly makes a distinction between the two.
Do not attempt to confuse the issue by resorting to the term “native born.” At the Founding, under natural law and the law of nations, “native” meant the same thing as “natural born citizen.” In a loser sense, it also meant just born in the colonies or new states. Now we can see why the Framers rejected it and rather chose the term of art “natural born Citizen” which only had one and only one definition under natural law and the law of nations. Over the years, “native” took on the meaning of one born on U.S. soil without any reference to the child’s parents. This was done to distinguish such citizen from a naturalized citizen. In any event, Article II requires a “natural born Citizen,” not a “native” citizen. It is the definition of the former and not the latter that controls the matter.
The CRS memo by Jack Maskell says “would appear to be a natural born’ citizen. . . ” Hence, he is not really sure.
The Ankeny state case is hardly any decision of authority on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” Despite the many U.S. Supreme Court and lower court cases and other authorities that have cited Vattel and his citizenship doctrine when defining U.S. citizenship, the court hardly even knew (or was willing to acknowledge) who Emer de Vattel was.
That Chief Justice Roberts swore Obama in means nothing. Our courts can only act in their judicial capacity when they have jurisdiction over a case or controversy. The act of swearing in a President Elect does not give either the Court or Chief Justice Roberts any jurisdiction over the matter of Obama’s eligibility. Without any such jurisdiction, his act of swearing him in is not a judicial act of approval but rather just a ministerial act called for by the Constitution.
Today, under Article II, the President must be not only a “citizen of the United States, but also a “natural born Citizen.” I have provided historical evidence and case law of the Supreme Court and lower courts that define a “natural born Citizen.” On the other hand, you have provided sources that define a born “citizen of the United States.” My presentation is controlling while yours is not, for you have defined the wrong term.
A judge is supposed to decide a case on the facts and the law, not on his or her personal circumstances.
Our citizenship laws provide countless examples of drawing bright lines. Article II itself tells us that to be President, “natural born Citizen” yes, “citizen of the United States” no.
Of course, there really isn’t much customary international law on the grant of citizenship. Each nation has a sovereign right to decide, subject to its own constitutional constraints, which people are its nationals.
In general, international law has surprisingly little to say about acquisition of nationality. The Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness does address the matter, but only to the extent that parties to the convention have nationality laws that would otherwise leave some people stateless. One of the main consequences of the convention is that signatory states agree to grant their nationality to those born within their territory who would otherwise be left stateless.
Where statements of international law are made regarding nationality, they normally apply to situations where laws of different countries already establish that someone is a national of one or more country and this leads to some sort of conflict. For example, from the Foreign Affairs Manual:
Thus, where international law addresses matters of dual nationality, it accepts as given that there will not be consistency between different nations’ policies. Whether customary international law or a mere fact of reality, it is widely recognised that physical presence, not blood or any ideology, ultimately determines which country can assert ultimate control over a person.
> Article II itself tells us that to be President, “natural born Citizen” yes, “citizen of the United States” no.
Actually, if I apply the birther interpretation game here, I could claim that the Constitution does not even require the President to be a *US* citizen.
If you omit the part that is only referring to those who were citizens at the time of the adoption, the relevant part reads: “No person except a natural born Citizen […] shall be eligible to the Office of President”
By birther logic (or, for that matter, Mario’s logic) I could say: “Tell me where it says the President must be a natural born *US* citizen.”
Funny, if you actually think about it. 😉
Good God….I generally feel birthers are idiots, but I don’t know whether to consider Mario the idiot king, or merely the kind of scum one scrapes off the bottom of one’s shoe (because he really should/or does know better).
How can one claim Minor clearly defines anything? They punt on the issue. When you say one thing clearly fits a catagory, and some folks say something else does as well, but you don’t need to decide that issue, you haven’t defined jack! The Court in Minor merely set the low bar. And even if there was some sort of definition, Wong came later, and if there were any inconsistencies (which there aren’t…Wong simply answered that question that Minor punted), Wong would be controlling.
And where are all these cases Mario talks about defining citizenship in terms of parents? I haven’t seen them…and funny, Mario didn’t cite them in his briefs (exept for perhaps dishonestly citing to Minor as providing a defintion of NBC). There is only so much of Mario I can take. He genuinely gives ambulance chasers a bad name. Reading his dishonest filth makes me sick to my stomach. At least Orly has the excuse of being totally incompetent and clueless about the law (considering some of the things she’s posted on her blog, I’m shocked she managed to pass the California bar). Mario has been practicing for years, and graduated from a halfway decent law school. There is no way he can honestly believe half the garbage he spews…hell, you can’t be literate in English and read Minor the way he does. There is no excuse for an attorney with his years to misrepresent the law the way he does.
Both. He’s a bully and a bigot hiding behind cowardly b.s. that strokes his fragile, disturbed ego.
Many birther bigots have a very small inner voice that knows the truth about them and they are terrified that they are wrong and that their deranged opinions are irrelevant.
Hence the “any day now” crap that calms their painful dissonance and covers them from the reality that Barack Hussein Obama II is the 44th and current President of the United States.
Well yeah if you want to play the birthers at their own game all you have to do is look at the way presidential eligibility line is written and the way it is punctuated. It says natural born citizen or a citizen of the united states at the time of adoption of the constitution. Those are two separate conditions. Nowhere does it say natural born citizen of the united states.
Haha I tried posting a comment on Pauly’s video saying essentially Yeah I’m glad that a physicist has authority when it comes to knowing the law and i sure would trust a lawyer to disarm a nuclear device end sarcasm. He wrote back:
“I see you have never had any dealings with attorneys.
Jedi Pauly”
lol he blocked my response
Jedipauly only let birthers post comments. I posted something like this:
To be natural born you just have to be born in US soil, parent’s citizenship is irrelevant. Obama was born here he didn’t go thru a process… he blocked me! hahaha
They didn’t even bother to read the decision and it’s dependence on Blackstone’s Commentaries.
“In words that echo Blackstone, the congressional resolution called upon state legislatures to “provide expeditious, exemplary, and adequate punishment” for “the violation of safe conducts or passports, . . . of hostility against such as are in amity, . . . with the United States, . . . infractions of the immunities of ambassadors and other public ministers . . . [and] “infractions of treaties and conventions to which the United States are a party.””
[skip]
“Consider, too, that the First Congress was attentive enough to the law of nations to
recognize certain offenses expressly as criminal, including the three mentioned by Blackstone. See An Act for thePunishment of Certain Crimes Against the United States, §8, 1 Stat. 113–114 (murder or robbery, or other capital crimes, punishable as piracy if committed on the high seas), and §28, id., at 118 (violation of safe conducts and assaults against ambassadors punished by imprisonment and fines described as “infract[ions of] the law of nations”).” SOSA v. ALVAREZ-MACHAIN ET AL.
The second quote, I believe shows that the Supreme Court would consider Blackstone as the source for the Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 10 of the Constition.
The truth makes birthers’ little pea sized brains hurt. Pathetic scum.
Jus gentium, Latin for “law of nations”, was originally the part of Roman law that the Roman Empire applied to its dealings with foreigners, especially provincial subjects. In later times the Latin term came to refer to the natural or common law among nations considered as states within a larger human society, especially governing the rules of peace and war, national boundaries, diplomatic exchanges, and extradition, that together with jus inter gentes makes up public international law.
Jon Roland, of the Constitution Society, lists several rules of law that make up the jus gentium, including:
1. Not attacking other nations, except in declared wars and similar situations;
2. Honoring truce, peace treaties, and boundaries;
3. Protecting wrecked ships and persons thereon;
4. Prosecuting piracy;
5. Caring decently for prisoners of war;
6. Protection of embassies and diplomats;
7. Honoring extradition treaties;
8. Prohibiting slavery and trading in slaves (in the modern era; enslavement of those defeated in war under certain conditions was not contrary to the ius gentium in antiquity).
Form Justice Scalia’s concurring opinion in Sosa
“Though it is not necessary to resolution of the present case, one further consideration deserves mention: Despite the avulsive change of Erie, the Framers who included reference to “the Law of Nations” in Article I, §8, cl. 10, of the Constitution would be entirely content with the post-Erie system I have described, and quite terrified by the “discretion” endorsed by the Court. That portion of the general common law known as the law of nations was understood to refer to the accepted practices of nations in their dealings with one another (treatment of ambassa-dors, immunity of foreign sovereigns from suit, etc.) and with actors on the high seas hostile to all nations and beyond all their territorial jurisdictions (pirates). Those accepted practices have for the most part, if not in their entirety, been enacted into United States statutory law, so that insofar as they are concerned the demise of the general common law is inconsequential. The notion that a law of nations, redefined to mean the consensus of states on any subject, can be used by a private citizen to control a sovereign’s treatment of its own citizens within its own territory is a 20th-century invention of internationalist law professors and human-rights advocates. See generally Bradley & Goldsmith, Critique of the Modern Position, 110 Harv. L. Rev., at 831–837. The Framers would, I am confident, be appalled by the proposition that, for example, the American peoples’ democratic adoption of the death penalty, see, e.g., Tex. Penal Code Ann. §12.31 (2003), could be judicially nullified because of the disapproving views of foreigners.
I imagine the same would hold true for allowing the “views of foreigners” determine what is a natural born citizen of the United States.
He blocked me also when I made a comment disproving his theory(?).
What I’ve been saying all along, hence my calling him Meretricious Mario.
Mario is like a mob lawyer except he basically works for the KKK or like organization.
Agreed. Richard Poe, who is one of the nuttiest neocon moonbats you will ever meet, is apparently a massive Star Wars fan. He also tries to pass himself off as a Lovecraft scholar, though I have my doubts (Cthulhu Ftaghn!)
Well, just goes to show that people are diverse, with diverse interests and why simplistic stereotypes rarely tell much about a person as a whole. Good fiction – whether it be sci-fi, fantasy, horror, comics, etc. can be appreciated by many of diverse backgrounds and diverse reasons.
Glad to see the B5 references (one of my favorite sci-fi series ever) as well as Lovecraft – one of my favorite horror authors. Personally, I’ve always loved Star Wars and Star Trek nearly equally and for different reasons. But it doesn’t surprise me that there are crazy folks and hate-based folks that also like these things as well. I’m sure different aspects appeal to them and I don’t personally care for sexist fools like “JediPauli” and how he abuses Lucas’ vision…but hey, fantasy inspires because it invokes the imagination and these folks unfortunately just chose to meld those otherwise entertaining fantasies with their own sad, twisted dark ones…
Now we have Strunk and his nonsense…
Strunk v Paterson/Obama et al: Treason, Sedition, Scheme to defraud, Grand Larceny, Money laundering, Bribery, Forgery, Tampering with public records…
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/11/strunk-v-patersonobama-et-al-treason.html
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS – 29642-08 – 11/12/2010
Plaintiff; Christopher Earl Strunk,
-against-
Defendants; David A. Paterson (NYS Governor), Andrew Cuomo (NYS Attorney General), Thomas P. DiNapoli (NYS Comptroller), Sheldon Silver (NYS Speaker of the Assembly), Malcom Smith (NYS Senator), Hakeem Jeffries (NYS Assemblyman for the 57th AD), Christine Quinn (NYC Speaker of the Council), William Thompson (NYC Comptroller), Jim Tedisco (NYS Assemblyman), Dean Skelos (President pro tempore of the NYS Senate) in their Official Capacities and individually, the Democrat Candidate Presidential Electors as a class, in their official Capacity and individually; The New York State Board of Elections and John Does and Jane Does, SOEBARKAH (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama) Individually; OBAMA FOR AMERICA; OBAMA VICTORY FUND, NANCY PELOSI, individual; DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN 111, individually; MCCAIN VICTORY2008; MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY2008; JOHN A. BOEHNER, individually; THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; ROGER CALERO, individually; THE SOCLALIST WORKERS PARTY; XYZ JOINT FUNDRAISING COMMITTEES; NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, JAMES A. WALSH / Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KEUNER / Co-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILA / Commissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON / Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, Deputy Director STANLEY ZALEN, Secretary of the State of New York, LORRAINE A. CORTEZ-VAZQUEZ, individually; ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI, John and Jane Does; and XYZ Entities.
Notice of Motion for leave to file the First Amended Complaint NYS Supreme Court Kings County
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed affidavit of Christopher-Earl : Strunk in esse, affirmed November 11,2010 with exhibit annexed, will move for leave to file and serve the Amended Summons and Verified First Amended Complaint before the Honorable David I. Schmidt at the Part 47 Courtroom in the Courthouse st 360 Adams Street Brooklyn New York 10007, on 30th day of November 2010, at 9:30 O’clock before Noon or at a time designated by the court or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard. – Stamped; Kings County Supreme Court Motion Support APPROVED, Dated, 11/12/10.
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Accordingly, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury: …
…3. This Affidavit is in support of the Notice of Motion for permission to file a First Amended Complaint (FAC) to the underlying Verified Complaint filed on or about October 27, 2008 and is filed with leave under CPLR Rule 305 and Rule 3025(b); there is no previous request for this relief, nor is there another to benefit.
4. That the Verified FAC with Summons annexed herewith provides nunc pro tunc additional facts and details as a more definite statement of the ongoing injury suffered by Plaintiff along with those similarly situated and that requires the addition of necessary parties and the treatment of the Democratic Party Electoral College of New York as a Class rather than as a matter of individual persons in that the election and vote has already occurred and is merely a matter of state and federal record at the present; and further,………………….
http://gretawire.forums.foxnews.com/topic/strunk-v-patersonobama-et-al-treason-sedition-fraud-tampering-and-more
Typical Strunk. He filed it (an Order to Show Cause) two years ago and the judge refused to sign it. Nothing has happened in the intervening two years, so now he is trying to resurrect it.
By my count Strunk has filed about 20 lawsuits in New York since 1997. He is a very litigious individual, although he is not very good at it.
The funniest thing in Strunk’s paper is that he requests permission to carry a concealed weapon in New York since he “feels threatened”. Does this guy have issues or what?
I should demand permission to carry an unconcealed cluebat to whack birthers with. 😉
The only way to get a comment through on Jedi Pauly’s YouTube is to agree with him or praise him. I wrote a comment using my anotherparadox YouTube name that praised him. Of course, it was a snarky comment… 😉
Hahaha i just read it. He’s too dumb to realize what you actually said
Minor v Happersett was a case about voting rights. Minor, a woman, claimed that she was entitled to vote because she was a citizen.
While the Supreme Court decided that Minor did not have a right to vote, it did not do so because she was a woman, but rather because the States decide who can vote and citizenship alone does not qualify someone to vote.
The court affirmed that Minor was a citizen, but noted that from the beginning, various classes of citizens could not vote. Not all male citizens could vote either at the founding of our country. Land ownership was, for example, a requirement. Age is another requirement.
In a comment on the youtube video of the pro-Lakin “rally” in Phoenix that he was a Law Professor and that Mario Apuzzo was his student. Needless to say, I was treated to a tirade of personal insults, my request for his CV was ignored and I left it with telling him that I think he is a liar.